9/11 museum, atheists spar over cross

(CBS News) The National September 11 Memorial and Museum's planned presentation of the World Trade Center cross-shaped steel beam, which became a famous Ground Zero symbol right after the September 11 attacks, is being legally challenged by an atheist group.

Last year, American Atheists sued the museum for the cross' removal, arguing that the steel beam promoted religion. Its legal director, Edwin Kagin, argued that the display represents "a violation of both federal and New York law in that public funds will be used to establish the Christian religion on public land."

This week, as previously reported by The New York Post and The New York Times, the museum filed court papers to have the lawsuit thrown out.

American Atheists' president, David Silverman, characterized the display as "a clear instance of a violation of the separation of church and state in its extreme."

"This shrine is a cross," Silverman told CBS News on Thursday. "It was picked up, trimmed, polished, the word 'Jesus' was carved on top of it, it was prayed over in front of a church for five years, and then it was installed in the WTC memorial with no warning by a priest in a religious service where in the ground was consecrated. This is a working Christian shrine in the memorial and then they had the gall to say it's not religious in nature, that it represents everybody. That's not true. It does not represent Jews, Muslims, Mormons or atheists, and they all had deaths on 9/11."

Silverman said that the museum should either remove the cross or acknowledge everybody else who died in the tragedy in a manner equal to Christians. "We're talking about public lands, we're talking about public funds, we're talking about congressionally ordered public funds. We're talking about an 18-foot memorial, this is grossly inappropriate. We feel very strongly that this is an attempt to Christianize 9/11, to make it about Christians, even though it's not about Christians at all."

When contacted by CBS News, the museum said it had no comments on Silverman's claims. As reported by other media outlets, the museum in its court filing characterized itself is an "independent non-profit corporation." It called the cross an "important and essential artifact" that "belongs at the World Trade Center site as it comprises a key component of the re-telling of the story of 9/11."

Michael Moreland, vice dean and professor of law at Villanova University School of Law in Pennsylvania, said there are two issues presented in this case. "If the court agrees with the Museum that it is a private non-profit organization," Moreland told CBS News, "then the museum will win because a private party can't violate the Establishment Clause - only the government can.

"But, second, displays of religious symbols by the government aren't always unconstitutional. In 2010, a majority of the Supreme Court indicated that a memorial cross on government land in the Mojave Desert was constitutionally permissible because a reasonable observer wouldn't conclude that the government was 'endorsing' Christianity by displaying the cross on public land. Given the historical significance of the 9/11 cross during the Ground Zero cleanup, I think the museum has a strong argument that the cross's historical significance outweighs any perceived government endorsement of religion."

According to Peter Breen, executive and legal counsel for Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based law firm involved in pro-life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty issues, said that a private entity cannot violate one's constitutional rights.

"It appears based on the arguments of the lawyers of the museum," he said, "they're arguing from pretty solid ground - that a museum cannot be prohibited from displaying a historical item merely because the item has religious significance or is in viewed with religious significance by others. I think the lawyers for the museum were also right to condemn this as an attempt to revise the very history of the site by trying to keep the 9/11 cross out of the museum."

The museum's recent court filing to dismiss American Atheists' lawsuit was expected, according to Silverman."We think our lawsuit is not only valid but winnable," he said, "and it must be won in fact."

[AngelKryptonite]

The Cross was a symbol of Death long before Christianity existed. Which is why Gothic people sometimes wear crosses. Because it' a symbol of death even in the bible. but the cross really originates from pagan beliefs. The cross itself does not belong to Christians.

[jsharkey621]

That may be true, but it has Jesus carved into it. That pretty clearly establishes it as a Christian symbol.

[camrguy]

It brought comfort and solace to many of the rescuers and family/friends of the victims. So much so that people wrote on it--thus separating it from regular debris. Perhaps some of other beliefs (or non-theists) wrote (or spat) on it.
It is an intrinsic part of the fabric of the scene--and belongs in the museum. It doesn't have to be buried in a sea of "inclusion" either. Just as the actual American Flag that flew there shouldn't be sewn into a "healing quilt" comprised of every other nation that lost someone there.
You can not believe in a god without being vitriolic about it.
Myself, I treat it as something a lot of people are really into for some reason---like NASCAR.

[Cygnes_Umbra]

My name is Cygnes Umbra and this is my opinion, you can find me on facebook under that same name if you have anything to say. A scripture from the bible, Proverb 12:21. "No harm befalls the righteous, but the wicked have their fill of trouble." So according to the bible... Every life taken by tragedy such as illness, murder, accident, war, and misfortune is a wicked life? They weren't righteous enough to avoid the misfortune of losing their life to something that caused their body, mind, and spirit harm. It's what that scripture means regardless of how your religious banter tries to sugar coat it.

The lives lost on 9/11 befell harm. Their lives were taken due to an act of harmful intent. So if the bible and God says that no harm shall befall the righteous and the wicked have their fill? What about the thousands of the lives lost that day were wicked to a God that failed to save them? And by claiming those lives were wicked, what gives you the right to erect a cross in their honor? I think the cross should be removed. Not because of stupid emotional or physical pain claims made by others. But for the simple fact that not everyone that died that day carried the faith or believed in a religion that held the cross as a symbolic item or totem. And why is it so different now that Atheists are attacking a religious group for forcing a religious monument in the honor of the dead when the same religion attacked another religion and group of people that wanted to do the same thing simply because it wasn't Christian or because their religion wasn't the same? Wouldn't that make it every Christian that signed the paper against the Moss when they wanted to put it up in honor of their dead a hypocrit since now they've done the same thing and someone other than a Christian says it's not allowed? So it's okay to force out another faith as long as it's not christian? That's idiotic, foolish, and hypocritical.

[Monochramtic]

no harm befalls the righteous is about a person's spirit after they leave their earthly body.

[sparkmarkham]

I say let the families of the deceased decide about the cross. I wonder how many would say no to anything that can relieve the pain and loss they and their fellow mourners endure.
The families of the innocent that had their lives taken from them and the families of the fire fighters and policemen that gave their lives. To the people who say they are offended or outraged by this and that. I am telling you it is none of your ******* business in the first place and you have no right to have any say at all. SO SHUT UP AND SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT THIS INVOLVES.

[hopperms]

Just because the majority believes something doesn't make it right. I personally see no problem with the cross. The problem is the fact that it does not represent everyone. Nearly 1/3 of the people that lost their lives were not Christian. If the cross isn't taken down, something else should also be put up to represent everyone else. Everyone's lives should be respected equally, meaning that everyone should be equally be represented. A cross alone completely ignores the beliefs of that 33%. Nobody is trying to be disrespectful to the people that lost their lives that day. They are just trying to get the recognition everyone deserves.

[lawper]

The government is not trying to promote any religion. The cross became a symbol of our freedom and should be displayed. No where does it say that if a museum item, that could be religious, has to have other items from other beliefs. The star of David did not show up until after the 17th century. The majority killed were Christians. How many museums are out there with crosses or other religious references.

[BlakeHahn]

Of all the trials and tribulations in this world: disease, war, death- I have for you one simple remedy for any of your ails...

"The less you care, the happier you will be."

[sparkmarkham]

Until it happens to you brotha, Until it happens to you!

[tigasuku]

It is offensive and repulsive as a representation of an ancient torture and execution device. It is more offensive as a symbol of the otherworldly fantasy that the victims are safe and happy in the arms of Jesus somewhere in Neverland.

The victims of the tragedy of 9/11 were obliterated. Their lives were stolen and they were consigned to non-existence. To even hint at the idea that there is anything positive about this or to cultivate the absurd and maladaptive idea that the survivors left by the tragedy might see their loved ones again is the most cruel form of hoax.

Injecting the fantasies of the faithful into this tragedy is a slap in the face to every victim and survivor thereof. It cheapens their loss and is as offensive as the odious idea that it was all part of "God's Plan" to lay waste to countless lives but leave us a crucifix as a parting gift - like some horrific signature of a psychopathic mass murder.

Let us not forget that religious faith did play a significant part in the events of 9/11 and it was certainly not positive.

I cannot express strongly enough how offensive and sickening I find the crucifix and what it represents. This feeling of revulsion becomes a sense of outrage at the insult it would be for this object to be part of the memorial to the people that died at the hand of religious faith.

There is a way to resolve this conflict. A way that should appease all sides of the argument. Many have said that this object has secular value because it was part of the buildings and prominent in the aftermath. It is undeniable that many wrote heartfelt messages on the beam. Certainly many were motivated by the perception of it as a symbol of their faith but there were probably some who stopped to read what was written and felt compelled to add their own message.

It is right that these things should be preserved for posterity to honor the responders who wrote upon the beam.

I believe that the most reasonable option is to remove the crossing beam from the vertical beam and display both in a manner that evokes no religion whatsoever. Nothing of substance would be lost and the secular and historical value of the object would remain intact. It could be mentioned in the text that will no doubt accompany the object that it was revered and preserved because of its similarity to a religious symbol, end of subject.

Those who will no doubt object to changing the appearance of the object must acknowledge that what they are truly seeking to preserve is not historic or secular value of the object but its status as a representation of the predominant symbol of Christianity. If it does indeed have value to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, then maintaining the shape of the crucifix is unnecessary and divisive.

I have considered carefully and cannot arrive at any reason, beyond preserving the religious nature of the object, that it should not be displayed in a neutral manner.

There are many who will argue that, but for its appearance as an accidental representation of a religious symbol, it would be with the rest of the debris from the towers. I agree, the only reason it is here in the first place is because people looked at it and saw more than a beam. We can recognize that this object took on meaning to the people at ground zero and pay homage to them without having to pay homage to their religion as well.

I invite serious comments and discussion concerning my opinion. This is my personal opinion and I presume to speak for no one else.

Thomas Bennett
[e-mail]

[BlakeHahn]

Oh, ignorance. Oh, hate. How I love thee.

[D_dubya]

I do not understand how some "thing" can upset you if you are atheist. I am atheist and, therefore, endow any object with supernatural power. If some icon provides solace or inspiration in others because of what they believe, who am I to deny them that solace or inspiration? Just because I am atheist does not mean I must be anti-theism. Nor should it upset me in any way. Do you cringe when someone blesses you after you sneeze? Do you denigrate (to their faces) those who offer to pray for you? Are you sickened by symbols of good luck (such as a 4 leaf clover or a rabbit's foot)? I doubt it. And, if these things bother you so much, I would suggest you seek counseling.

[tigasuku]

I have followed the dispute over the inclusion of a partially intact structural beam as part of the National September 11th Memorial and Museum.

I understand that there are several points that may render the question of the religious status of the object moot. However, I wish to address the religious status of the object and the propriety of its inclusion as part of the memorial and museum.

There appears to be a question concerning the object being perceived as a government endorsement of religion. I understand that there is a legitimate question concerning the establishment clause but I leave it to the attorneys and justices.

I believe that a critical point is being missed by all sides. There are those who seek inclusion of all religions and philosophies as a compromise to avoid removal of the object. This position fails to address the feelings of many American citizens. There are those of us who would oppose the accommodation of "inclusion" for any religion.

First, let us define what we are talking about. The object is simply a part of the supporting structure of the fallen towers. That it resembles the Christian symbol for a crucifix is not surprising considering the nature of steel reinforced buildings.

Had this quite ordinary beam not been recognizable as a Christian symbol it would have been discarded with the remainder of the rubble. It is, to the non-Christian, an unremarkable part of the fallen buildings.

It is undeniable that the beam was left intact because of the attachment to the Christian icon it was seen to represent. The crucifix is the central icon and primary symbol of modern Christianity. I believe it is safe to say that any Christian would immediately recognize the shape and would perceive it in a positive and faith affirming manner.

To imagine that there are only two ways of seeing this object, as a positive icon (the Christian perspective) or as an ordinary object (everyone else's perspective) ignores people like me. I did not lose anyone to the tragedy and cannot pretend to know the suffering of those who did lose a loved one or even a casual acquaintance. I suffered, like millions of others around the world, simply because I am human.

As a human being I feel that the inclusion of any symbol representing a religion is morally wrong. There are those of us who feel strongly and passionately that the inclusion of a crucifix, a symbol of torture and execution, is reprehensible. The only reason anyone could have for seeing such a grotesque symbol as something positive is the delusional state we refer to as religion.

The only reason that the crucifix is seen any differently than the rack, the Spanish chair, or the breaking wheel is its entanglement with the Christian myth and barbaric notion of the blood sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth.

Are we so inured to the influence of religion that we are seriously arguing about whether it is right to place a symbol of torture and murder at the memorial because some of the population (majority or not) see it through the rose colored glasses of Christianity?

It is as probable that a piece of wreckage could have been found in the shape of a swastika, should that have been lovingly preserved to honor any fallen whose religion it symbolizes? The fact that it was adopted by the Nazi party shouldn't tarnish its otherwise positive connotations as a religious symbol revered by Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains.

Arguing whether or not the display of this object constitutes an endorsement of religion by the government misses the point entirely. Let us grant that it is not an endorsement - it is still extraordinarily offensive to anyone not enthralled to the Christian myth of sacrificial slaughter, resurrection, and redemption.

[Svetlana342]

Have you ever been to a government-funded historical museum? It's not uncommon to see religious artifacts being exhibited.

[jgiesing]

I completely agree with your statement. I couldn't have come close to sayung it better myself!

[Theyon]

It would be one thing if the cross had just been a piece of wreckage happening to look like a cross. But once someone carves the word 'Jesus' on it, they have forfeited any right to attempt to place it in the museum. It's not like only Christians died on 9/11.

[greenj76j]

The moral decline in America did not happen overnight. If it had, there would have been an outcry. It simply would not have happened. Our culture would have rejected the change. But it didn't happen overnight. It took decades. Each moral concession made was barely noticed with the passage of time. I've used this analogy before, but I'll use it again. A frog dropped in a pot of boiling hot water will jump right out. Put that same frog in a pot of cool water, and heat it to its boiling point, and that same frog will cook. It does not notice the slowly increasing water temperature, and suddenly it's too late. That, dear friends, is how we've ended up here. But we can do something about it. And we must.